orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/22/85)
Despite Ronald Reagan's blustering remarks about "the
need for more than cosmetic peace" he failed to achieve
any significant results in making the world safer from
nuclear weapons. Certainly at least talking to the Soviet
Union is better than making sick jokes about "the bombing
starts in five minutes" or calling the Soviet Union an
"evil Empire" and the "focus of evil" in the whole world.
But what did Reagan really accomplish at the Summit?
Nothing beyond rhetoric and atmospherics.
Reagan's true attitude is displayed by the United Nations
vote on a resolution calling for an end to the nuclear
arms race by both superpowers on Monday before the Summit.
The UN voted 76-0 for this resolution, even the Soviet Union
voted for it. How come the US under Reagan's orders abstained?
(for those wanting references this was reported in the NYT 11/19/85
page A12)
Does Reagan support an end to the nuclear arms race?
The answer has been quite obvious in his opposition to *EVERY*
arms control agreement negotiated by either Republican or
Democratic Presidents for over 20 years. Of course it should
be no surprise that Reagan has not obtained a single nuclear
arms control agreement himself in 5 years in office.
For months now the Soviets have unilaterally stopped *ALL*
their nuclear testing. This is a significant step which could
help stop any development of new nuclear weapons in its tracks.
(It is almost impossible to develop new nuclear weapons without
testing them) The media have chosen to totally ignore this
important step: and the utter intransigence of Reagan in refusing
to stop US nuclear testing. Need I mention that Reagan did *NOT*
agree to stop US nuclear testing at the Summit despite the fact
the Soviets have already stopped their own testing.
Not only did Reagan fail to attain *ANY* new arms agreements,
he refused to renew the arms control treaties we already have
which were negotiated by Richard Nixon, Ford and Carter-
namely the ABM treaty and the SALT II treaty. If these agreements
are *NOT* renewed we will essentially have a situation of
*no arms control* whatsoever. Who cares? Every American worried about
Soviet missiles aimed at us should care a LOT: without SALT II
compliance the Soviets will no longer be limited to the 818
ICBM's they are currently limited at: a limit which has *NOT*
been violated by the Soviets. Further the Soviets will not
be limited as they now are to only one site for an ABM system.
Complaints about the Soviet radar at Krasnoryak being a violation
of the ABM treaty (which I believe it *is*) won't mean a thing
if we let the ABM treaty lapse.
Lipservice to "peace" and "reducing the world's nuclear weapons"
is not enough: we need to STOP and REDUCE the world's nuclear
weapons. Besides lipservice and rhetoric, Reagan was a failure
at the Summit.
tim sevener whuxn!orb